Nikole Hannah-Jones, a writer whose work consistently challenges conventional journalistic boundaries, has once again ignited controversy with a recent piece in the New York Times. Her approach, openly rejecting the tenets of objectivity, has long been a source of debate, most notably during the rollout of the “1619 Project.”
The “1619 Project,” despite winning a Pulitzer Prize, faced intense scrutiny from historians and legal scholars who questioned its central claim: that slavery was the primary catalyst for American independence. Now, Hannah-Jones returns to the Times, this time focusing her attention on Assata Shakur, a figure deeply entwined with a turbulent and violent chapter of American history.
Shakur, born JoAnne Deborah Byron, rose to prominence as a member of the Black Panther Party and later the Black Liberation Army. Her story culminated in the 1977 murder of New Jersey police officer Werner Foerster, a Vietnam veteran leaving behind a wife and young son. She subsequently escaped prison, finding refuge in Cuba, where she lived until her recent death.
Declared a domestic terrorist in 2005 and placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted list in 2013 under the Obama administration, Shakur’s past is a stark contrast to the sympathetic portrayal offered in Hannah-Jones’s column. The article largely omits the details of her violent history, presenting a narrative that prioritizes a specific perspective over established facts.
Hannah-Jones frames Shakur’s conviction as potentially tainted by an “all-white” jury, a claim that overlooks a substantial history of criminal activity. Prior to Foerster’s murder, Shakur was implicated in a series of crimes, including a shooting during a suspected drug deal and a bank robbery she later dismissed as a form of “racial reparations.”
Evidence links Shakur to a grenade attack injuring two police officers and an armed robbery at a Brooklyn church where robbers reportedly threatened to “blow the heads off White men.” These incidents, along with numerous other charges, paint a picture of a long-standing pattern of violence and defiance of the law.
The events leading to Foerster’s death unfolded on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973. A shootout between Shakur and state troopers left one trooper wounded and Foerster fatally shot. Despite facing multiple trials and convictions, Shakur ultimately escaped, aided by a network described by Hannah-Jones as a modern “Underground Railroad.”
The Times column focuses on the sacrifices made by Shakur and her family, yet remains conspicuously silent regarding the grief and loss experienced by Foerster’s widow and son. This omission underscores a troubling pattern of prioritizing one narrative while disregarding the pain of those directly impacted by Shakur’s actions.
This selective empathy echoes Hannah-Jones’s previous writings, where she has cautioned against focusing on crimes like shoplifting, arguing it “legitimizes the carceral state,” and condemned memorials to conservative figures as “dangerous.” The New York Times itself has faced criticism for its editorial choices, including silencing dissenting voices while platforming controversial perspectives.
The column concludes with the assertion that Shakur “died free,” a statement that feels profoundly disconnected from the reality of her life as a convicted murderer and wanted terrorist who spent decades in exile under a repressive regime. Werner Foerster, the officer whose life was cut short, is not mentioned by name once in the entire piece.
